The clash between Trads and Libertarians.

[Curved_Sw0rd]

I've been noticing the Coomer meme more and more, and the more I watch Dissident Right content the more I see this attitude of skepticism for Liberalism as a concept. Even here there's been disagreements about Porn, among other things, and it has some traitorous part of my brain worried, like the Right is going to crack in half the way the Left has, with the only glue it has is a rejection of Progressivism. It's possible that it's been true all along, but I'm still young and naive if it's any excuse, heh...

So my question is this, how do Libertarianism and Traditional Religious Conservatism and its variants reconcile and coexist? I feel like the answer is a matter of avoiding purity tests on both sides, and keeping things above board and respectful.

 

[Darth Robbhi]

Who pays for the consequences?

Libertarianism only works if you force people to suffer the consequences of their actions, especially when they make stupid choices. If you don't, it devolves into the great plague of contemporary American society: people who want the fun of adults, but the safety blanket of children.

Conversely, religious conservatives want to address the consequences of people being stupid by taking the choice away. Which has its own problems, namely resentment by people who want to make their own choices and decry the buzzkills.

It's a fast-growing and irreconcilable choice.

 

[Cherico]

welp time to bring out the triangle again

The three big political impulses, liberty, fraternity, and equality.

These things do not exist in harmony because at a certain point you have to give some thing up to get more of the value you want, and by the way these are core fucking values to people so yeah its stuff people fight for.

These three core values have fought since time immemorial and governments are formed based on what core values they give up and empower.

Libertarians my boys hang out at the far end of the liberty triangle traditionalists hang up further up closer to fraternity for the most part. That means they value stability a whole lot more then we do. Then we get into the religious right.

Their not into my laizefair way of thinking, really the religious right used to be a part of the American left, they used to be the left period. There was a time when religion took up that equality section of the triangle but they got booted out in favor of socialism and were left homeless.

So the modern right is basically an unstable alliance between people who really like stability, people who really like liberty, and people who got kicked out of their old home when beliving in god stopped being stunning and brave.

Currently the result is populism. It doesn't make me happy, it doesn't make the nationalists happy, and it doesn't make the fundies happy but the current left is going hard socialist so every one who doesn't want to be a part of the next "It wasn't socialism no really" death orgy has to work together.

Do we like each other? No, do we agree with each other no? But the time of ideal outcomes is over, and right now its not about winning its about survivial and survial is one of those things that have a way of bringing people together.

 

[Captain X]

Libertarianism is at its base about leaving people the fuck alone unless they represent a provable threat to others. This means that members of the religious right would get along just fine in libertopia, as long as they didn't try to force their crap on others. The reverse would most certainly not be true, as the "traditionalists" are every bit as much about saving people from themselves as the leftists are.

 

[FriedCFour]

The reverse would most certainly not be true, as the "traditionalists" are every bit as much about saving people from themselves as the leftists are.

I guarantee you I line up about 95% policy wise with you and I am unequivocally a traditionalist. Where we disagree is that I say, "yeah, you can go culture a porn addiction and deal with the consequences of it. But don't say I didn't warn you, and I disagree it is a good thing." You say "watching porn is actually good for you and everyone should do it, it's actually better for you, I don't think it should be stigmatized at all and you are wrong for saying that." We agree on that vast majority of policy, just for different reasons and we have a different view of how society should be structured and how we should interact socially. But with law, we largely agree.

 

[Captain X]

And on the other hand there are a lot more people who call themselves traditionalists who would line up more with people like, well, I probably shouldn't name names, but people who would see an end to egalitarianism and a return to such traditional values as women belonging in the kitchen, preferably while barefoot and pregnant.

 

[Cherico]

I guarantee you I line up about 95% policy wise with you and I am unequivocally a traditionalist. Where we disagree is that I say, "yeah, you can go culture a porn addiction and deal with the consequences of it. But don't say I didn't warn you, and I disagree it is a good thing." You say "watching porn is actually good for you and everyone should do it, it's actually better for you, I don't think it should be stigmatized at all and you are wrong for saying that." We agree on that vast majority of policy, just for different reasons and we have a different view of how society should be structured and how we should interact socially. But with law, we largely agree.

We disagree on a whole lot of things here.

The people on this site run the gamit of philophys religions, ethnicities and countries but as different as we are we have to put all of our shit aside because 2020 is coming and its going to be a shit show of a year.

 

[FriedCFour]

We disagree on a whole lot of things here.

That's why I said policy wise, and I was talking to Captain X. I agree with Libertarians on a lot of issues, but I have very different ideas on why and philosophy.

And on the other hand there are a lot more people who call themselves traditionalists who would line up more with people like, well, I probably shouldn't name names, but people who would see an end to egalitarianism and a return to such traditional values as women belonging in the kitchen, preferably while barefoot and pregnant.

Well women unequivacally should. End the push to give them advantages and get them employed through bullshit laws, they should be spending a lot more time pregnant and having children and not working. But by law they shouldn't be restricted.

 

[Captain X]

I agree that they should have no more advantages or disadvantages than men when it comes to employment or simply existing outside of the home, but I'll have to disagree with you on the topic of women needing to be home and pregnant. Personally I find that very objectifying, which is ironic given my stance on porn given how the moral guardians on both the right and the left insist that porn is objectifying.

 

[FriedCFour]

but I'll have to disagree with you on the topic of women needing to be home and pregnant. Personally I find that very objectifying, which is ironic given my stance on porn given how the moral guardians on both the right and the left insist that porn is objectifying.

Well that disagreement is part of why demographically the west is dying. But men and women are fundamentally different, women are functionally meant to have children and be mothers. Men and women are not interchangeable, and my position is hardly objectifying. Its acknowledging the need to sustain a future, which libertarians largely dont care about.

 

[Captain X]

It reduces women to their uterus, and is thus objectifying. And it isn't that libertarians do not care about sustaining the human race (this argument is in the same vein as the leftists claiming conservatives lack empathy for not wanting open borders, btw), it's that we feel everyone should have the right to be as they desire to be rather than being limited because they happened to be born a woman or of a certain race.

 

[FriedCFour]

It reduces women to their uterus, and is thus objectifying.

It says to embrace bringing about children, mothering, and nurturing the young as you build them up for the future. Such objectifying.

And it isn't that libertarians do not care about sustaining the human race (this argument is in the same vein as the leftists claiming conservatives lack empathy for not wanting open borders, btw), it's that we feel everyone should have the right to be as they desire to be rather than being limited because they happened to be born a woman or of a certain race.

Do you think having children or at the very least, encouraging or helping to facilitate others have children matters?

 

[Captain X]

It says to embrace bringing about children, mothering, and nurturing the young as you build them up for the future. Such objectifying.

Nah, it just says that since you were born a woman, your options for what you can do are limited and that you are reduced to what your reproductive organs can do. Which is objectifying.

Do you think having children or at the very least, encouraging or helping to facilitate others have children matters?

I think that if people want to have children, that is their choice. But there should be no societal pressure along those lines. I am sick and tired of traditionalists trying to limit people based on outdated ideas of gender roles.

 

[FriedCFour]

Nah, it just says that since you were born a woman, your options for what you can do are limited and that you are reduced to what your reproductive organs can do. Which is objectifying.

No options are reduced, just that you'd probably be better off and happier picking one over the other. If I hand you an apple and hand you a candy bar, and tell you that the apple is healthy and will sustain you as a snack while the candy will give you momentary happiness but will not be good for you, have I taken away any choices?

I think that if people want to have children, that is their choice. But there should be no societal pressure along those lines. I am sick and tired of traditionalists trying to limit people based on outdated ideas of gender roles.

Outdated? Lol, gender roles are inherent and always have been. There is a reason why we had monarchies, not matriarchies, brothers in arms, not sisters. We are a sexually dimorphic species, with different inherent functions and traits. To ignore that is the height of whimsical egalitarian idealism. And thank you for proving you don't care one bit about the sustainability of western nations given our drastic reduction in birth rate is absolutely an issue threatening our future.

 

[Captain X]

No options are reduced, just that you'd probably be better off and happier picking one over the other.

You know, I don't like this argument any better when the left tries to use it either. It is extremely presumptuous and patronizing.

If I hand you an apple and hand you a candy bar, and tell you that the apple is healthy and will sustain you as a snack while the candy will give you momentary happiness but will not be good for you, have I taken away any choices?

It would be more along the lines of actively trying to get the candy banned, or trying to create a culture of shame around eating candy that would lead to one getting shunned for eating it.

Outdated? Lol, gender roles are inherent and always have been.

No, not really. It is more common for people to fit within them, but plenty of people don't, and these gender roles should not be enforced in any way.

There is a reason why we had monarchies,

Yes, some very bad ones.

not matriarchies,

Except that there have been. I can think of the Mandan and Hidatsa off the top of my head.

brothers in arms, not sisters.

Tell that to the women who are currently serving.

We are a sexually dimorphic species, with different inherent functions and traits.

Traits, yes, functions, no.

To ignore that is the height of whimsical egalitarian idealism. And thank you for proving you don't care one bit about the sustainability of western nations given our drastic reduction in birth rate is absolutely an issue threatening our future.

Okay, thanks for proving that conservatives lack empathy for not wanting wide open borders and don't care at all about the coming doom of climate change for not wanting to embrace socialist globalism to combat it.

 

[FriedCFour]

You know, I don't like this argument any better when the left tries to use it either. It is extremely presumptuous and patronizing.

That you would argue one choice is better than another?

It would be more along the lines of actively trying to get the candy banned, or trying to create a culture of shame around eating candy that would lead to one getting shunned for eating it.

I don't want any of that though. You are once again giving me policies I dont hold to.

No, not really. It is more common for people to fit within them, but plenty of people don't, and these gender roles should not be enforced in any way.

I agree legally. I think its fine to tell people to fit them, I think its dumb to encourage breaking them for the sake of breaking them. "Women should be in STEM because there are below 50% women" is stupid. If an individual wants to all power to them. But they shouldnt be encouraged to on the basis of being a woman.

Yes, some very bad ones.

And some great ones.

Except that there have been. I can think of the Mandan and Hidatsa off the top of my head.

Yes, but these are exceptions. The vast majority of civilizations have male rulership.

Tell that to the women who are currently serving.

Who make up and will always make up a much smaller percentage of troops then men, who present unique issues inherent to their inclusion, who inherently have a harder go of it than men do.

Traits, yes, functions, no.

Really? A man can birth and feed a child with his own body? How good is a woman at building muscle mass? Men are inherently better at hard labor, women at nurturing and caring. These are just basic facts.

Okay, thanks for proving that conservatives lack empathy for not wanting wide open borders and don't care at all about the coming doom of climate change for not wanting to embrace socialist globalism to combat it.

You just said no one should be encouraged to do what you objectively need to to sustain a future. Its clear then you dont care about encouraging people to sustain a future. How low would the birth rate need to get before you cared?

 

[Cherico]

fried we are working on the artificial womb and it will be ready when its ready and not a minute before.

 

[Captain X]

That you would argue one choice is better than another?

That people would be "better off" making the choice that you want them to.

I don't want any of that though. You are once again giving me policies I dont hold to.

Certainly seems that way from where I'm sitting. Seems very much along the same lines as the "I don't want to ban porn, I just want to socially engineer society into treating it like it might as well be" argument.

I agree legally. I think its fine to tell people to fit them, I think its dumb to encourage breaking them for the sake of breaking them. "Women should be in STEM because there are below 50% women" is stupid. If an individual wants to all power to them. But they shouldnt be encouraged to on the basis of being a woman.

You won't get that if you're too busy encouraging women to stay home and be pregnant.

And some great ones.

Never thought I'd see the day that someone who also sees the roof Koreans as peak freedom would ever make an argument in favor of monarchy. What a time to be alive...

Yes, but these are exceptions. The vast majority of civilizations have male rulership.

Disproves the assertion you made, though. And really doesn't make much of a point in any case.

Who make up and will always make up a much smaller percentage of troops then men, who present unique issues inherent to their inclusion, who inherently have a harder go of it than men do.

And yet they're still there, putting their own necks on the line, which is a lot more than a lot of men can say who don't.

Really? A man can birth and feed a child with his own body? How good is a woman at building muscle mass? Men are inherently better at hard labor, women at nurturing and caring. These are just basic facts.

And now you're just back to being asinine, and generalizing to boot. Tell you what, though, my last job I sorted mail, and the one chucking the 70 pound bags/packages at me was a woman, and I often had a hard time keeping up with her. She was not a body builder either, she was just a farm girl. It's true that men have better upper body strength on average, but using that as an argument to reinforce gender roles ignores all the people who call outside that very center of the bell curve.

You just said no one should be encouraged to do what you objectively need to to sustain a future. Its clear then you dont care about encouraging people to sustain a future. How low would the birth rate need to get before you cared?

Again, the same argument could be made as far as climate change, or anything else that uses "don't you care!?" as its basis.

 

[FriedCFour]

That people would be "better off" making the choice that you want them to.

Everyone believes that.

Certainly seems that way from where I'm sitting. Seems very much along the same lines as the "I don't want to ban porn, I just want to socially engineer society into treating it like it might as well be" argument.

If by engineer you mean "This is what I believe and why" and "we shouldn't have laws doing the opposite" and "I married someone who wants to be a mother" yes I am quite the engineer.

You won't get that if you're too busy encouraging women to stay home and be pregnant.

Wont get what?

Never thought I'd see the day that someone who also sees the roof Koreans as peak freedom would ever make an argument in favor of monarchy. What a time to be alive...

There is a reason why it was dominant. Within the time and place it worked, and there were without a doubt good kings.

Disproves the assertion you made, though. And really doesn't make much of a point in any case.

Men are more inclined to be leaders. This is why most leaders were men.

And yet they're still there, putting their own necks on the line, which is a lot more than a lot of men can say who don't.

Sure, but men are still more inclined, and especially with those actually putting their neck on the line, not just rocking a desk job with a uniform.

And now you're just back to being asinine, and generalizing to boot. Tell you what, though, my last job I sorted mail, and the one chucking the 70 pound bags/packages at me was a woman, and I often had a hard time keeping up with her. She was not a body builder either, she was just a farm girl. It's true that men have better upper body strength on average, but using that as an argument to reinforce gender roles ignores all the people who call outside that very center of the bell curve.

Are there women who can make for great laborers? Yes. But most cant, and most laborers will be men.

Again, the same argument could be made as far as climate change, or anything else that uses "don't you care!?" as its basis.

The impact of climate change can be argued. No one having any kids and still sustaining society cannot.

 

[almostinsane]

Trad cons and libertarians are not really far apart. I lean libertarian as well. My views can be summarized with this allegory.


My ideal society is exemplified in an old school small town. Everyone is free to trade goods and services and live their lives as they damn well please and have sole say what is to be done with their property. They can congregate at the church or the brothel, though the former is an important part of the community and the latter is frowned upon.

The family is important. It is the bedrock of society and nurtures children. Doing what is best for the family is a cherished value and anything destructive to it is condemned.

Now, certain libertarians here might feel this is oppressive, but the worst they'd face is social judgement and society's refusal to accept their vices as good even as they are free to pursue them.

This gets to the crux of the matter. Can libertine libertarians as I call them (because being libertarian does not equal libertinism) accept people judging some of their actions as bad or harmful?

If not, I call them out as hypocrites because they have certainly judged certain beliefs and actions as harmful or immoral.

TLDR: I want almost any kind of vice legalized, but I'm not going to call them good or disavow the family or its primacy in any civilization. Anyone can do as they like as long as they harm no one, but they cannot prevent people from having opinions about it.